Missing the point (again)
Neil Harding, I’m afraid, is almost the blogosphere’s very definition of cluelessness (as in ‘could not get a clue if he smeared himself in clue pheromones and stood in a middle of a field of horny clues in the clue mating season’). And briefly admitted as much on his own site (a genuine screenshot). He really still (despite repeated explanations by people who, frankly, are a lot more patient with him than he deserves) does not understand what is meant by civil liberties. He is a hopeless case. Unless of course he’s really just some sort of joke blog intended to discredit Labour supporters?
And despite his claim to ‘remember fully the whole authoritarianism of the Thatcher/Major era’, he quite clearly doesn’t really understand what is meant by authoritarianism, nor does his memory of that period seem to be particularly accurate (indeed downright inaccurate would be a better description), relying more on remembered slogans and the usual tactic of ‘if you don’t know something, just make shit up and hope no-one checks’.
Well I do remember, and I am over forty, and if anyone wants to talk about history – the assault on our freedom by this Labour Government are unprecedented in the last 350 years (I am not however 350 years old…). You may have disapproved of Thatcher’s economic policies – I did myself; you may have disapproved of the hectoring moral tone – I did too; but for all her personal and political faults neither her government nor John Major’s contrived to undermine the basis of our entire legal system or to tear up the fabric of our constitution, and all in the name of a narrow, short-term, media-driven political advantage.
That in the end is what is most despicable about this Labour government – that it does these things, not out of a sense of ideology or moral purpose, but for the sake a few good headlines and to outflank their party political opponents. That it should do such damage to our democracy so casually and so thoughtlessly, with such patent lack of understanding is what both astonishes and appals.
The end of the law is, not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.
John Locke
February 21st, 2006 at 11:37 am
Ha! I love those backlinks sometimes…
DK
February 21st, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Unless of course he’s really just some sort of joke blog intended to discredit Labour supporters?
Having just read his criticism of those who oppose New Labour’s authoritarian nonsense, I’m beginning to think you might have hit the nail on the head there.
February 21st, 2006 at 3:47 pm
i read his site once. that seemed to be enough
February 21st, 2006 at 5:06 pm
I’m occasionally masochistic enough to bite every so often; although I usually feel like retiring to a padded room afterwards. Black really isn’t the new white, is it?
Interestingly I’m having a bit of a discussion with the Pedant General about Thatcher’s authoritarianism. He hit it on the head; I hadn’t expressed myself very well. As far as her party was concerned she was staunchly authoritarian. So, although her policies weren’t, in general, authoritarian, her management style was. That, I feel was ultimately self-destructive.
Do remember that Michael Howard was one of Major’s ministers and was all set to bring about the odious ID cards in 1995. He, I think, is cast in the Blair mould. Frankly, a certain amount of this tendency seems to be a prerequisite for entering parliament these days…
February 21st, 2006 at 7:05 pm
I think that’s it – Thatcher had an authoritarian personality, but lacked Blair’s totalitarian mindset and the obsession with new shiny technological solutions looking for problems to solve. In retrospect, Thatcher seems to have a certain depth and solidity, whereas Blair has always seemed, how can one put it, deeply shallow, indeed shallow all the way through, a man without real substance or moral compass, in fact a sort of political jellyfish adrift on a tabloid sea.
I can’t remember the detail of the Tory ID card proposals, but I don’t recall that their true function was to feed data on citizens into a government database. So a crap idea, but nowhere near as crap as the current iteration.
February 21st, 2006 at 10:08 pm
From what I recall, they were supposed to be “smart” cards (1995 technology, though). I can’t remember much about the database, though, but the 1995 consultation referred to data being held and issues of accuracy. I think the idea was there, just not the means – nor, for that matter, the will within cabinet.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:52 pm
I think you’re right – it’s all starting to come back. But weren’t these cards ‘smart’ in that they carried the data on them, rather than being able to be checked against a central database?
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:21 am
Pete, nice piece of misrepresentation there, as you well know It wasn’t me that wrote the insult, it was devil’s kitchen. Sort of sums up the honesty of your entire post.
I think the fact Thatcher abolished local government was pretty damn near as authoritarian as you can get, or doesn’t that count?
Thatcher didn’t like who the metropolitan councils elected cos they elected Labour so she scrapped the lot, GLC etc. Then take away all local govt powers and replace them with unelected QUANGOs. Then remove their revenue raising powers and tell them they can’t even spend the money they do raise from things like council house sales to replace the housing stock (this is the reason we have our current housing crisis).
Thatcher centralised everything from Whitehall, it was ridiculous power crazy authoritarianism. Local govt democracy was decimated. No wonder turnout plummeted, it was pointless voting in local elections and people knew it.
What about the unprecedented number of guillotined bills pushed through parliament by the Tories, that led to laws like the Poll Tax? Funny how the Tory dominated house of lords failed to stop any of these things, they only come alive when Labour is in govt, they have opposed more Labour bills under this govt than all the Tory govts EVER in existence.
What about internment and shoot to kill policies in N. Ireland?
What about politicising the civil service and abolishing the collection of statistics on wealth and income inequality?
What about the manipulation of unemployment statistics etc? 23 changes to how they were recorded, the Tories were famous for it.
What about Section 28?
Oh yeah, Mr Longrider, Thatcher was nice really, just a bit authoritarian with her party no-one else, YOU need a history lesson mate!
It is this Labour government that has given us devolution for Scotland, Wales, London elected by PR, with more to come for local government.
David Miliband is looking at devolving power back to local authorities. We have freedom of information acts, extensive laws on gay rights, equalised age of consent, stopped discrimination in armed forces and abortion rights, transparency in party funding, independence for National Statistics (and yes they did restore the wealth and income stats), human rights act, better public services, poverty reduced (civil liberties are not just for the rich you know), ending race discrimination for public functions. etc. etc.
A lot of what you object to, has come about because of new technology. Are you telling me the Tories wouldn’t make use of it? Remember it was the Tories who introduced CCTV. Think of how 9/11 has changed the global threat from terrorism. Are you telling me the Tories, that were more gung-ho about Iraq and George Bush and who introduced internment and shoot to kill for N.Ireland wouldn’t have introduced new terror laws? Remember that more Labour MPs voted against Iraq than Tory MPs.
The Tories and Lib Dems would be at least as authoritarian as Labour and probably much much worse if they were in government, you only have to look at their past records. Ironically the Liberals even voted against PR (single transferable vote). It would have become law if they had supported it.
February 22nd, 2006 at 3:33 am
Oh almost forgot, remember the ban on Sinn Fein speakers that led to soft spoken actors being dubbed over Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness that made us the laughing stock of the world and actually improved Sinn Fein’s image.
February 22nd, 2006 at 8:19 am
But weren’t these cards ’smart’ in that they carried the data on them, rather than being able to be checked against a central database?
I believe they were. Certainly I recall talk of firewalling the data. There was also concern about people scanning them as there is today with the RFID chips.
Neil, do yourself a favour and try to see the world as it is. It is not black and white; rather, it is shades of grey. One thing I do not need is a revisionist history lesson.
People and politics are complex and rarely have nice neat edges. My comments about Thatcher reflect the quality of her management style; autocratic, hectoring and bullying. None of these things did her any favours. However, her polices did not involve treating the whole UK population as suspects as is happening now. Nor did she seek to dismantle the checks and balances that exist to preserve our freedom from the totalitarianism. She recognised that we are all individuals and that we should be allowed autonomy in our lives. Unfortunately, individuals are an anathema to Blair and his collective.
Thatcher’s biggest flaw was in failing to recognise that cabinet is a team and the person chairing that team needs to take the rest of the team willingly or it falls apart. Had she been less authoritarian with them, she might have been able to hear those who expressed concern about the poll tax.
The poll tax and the removal of the GLC et al were not authoritarian measures. Because you don’t like a policy, it doesn’t mean that the policy is authoritarianism. And, yes, the Tories passed their share of bad laws, but none of it comes close to the removal of habeas corpus, the ability to dissolve parliament and rule from cabinet or the ability to just amend or repeal laws without recourse to parliament. This is not just authoritarian, it’s downright frightening.
Global terror? Do me a favour. Islamic jihadists operate much as terror groups always have; as semi-autonomous cells. Their aims and modus operandi might be different to previous groups, but the idea of a globally organised terror group is preposterous and nothing more than a bogeyman used by Blair to frighten the populace into meek obedience so that they will put up with the agenda of mass surveillance. Global terror network, my a**e! You, however, appear to have swallowed it whole.
That Thatcher or Major would have used such tools in the same way as Blair is speculation – although Major ultimately rejected the ID cards proposal. Even if true, two wrongs do not make a right. Blair is indulging in a programme of mass surveillance and control; that is what we have to deal with – not speculation about what might have happened twenty years ago.
BTW – I think you will find that the relevant part of the screenshot is the bit about the ten grand in the case.
February 22nd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Just briefly, on a couple of those points:
What about the unprecedented number of guillotined bills pushed through parliament by the Tories, that led to laws like the Poll Tax?
What about internment and shoot to kill policies in N. Ireland?
These are astonishing attacks from a supporter of this government; a government that is pushing through a Bill, as we speak, to vastly extend the Executive’s power to make laws without submitting them to Parliament. A government that has tried to introduce internment itself, in the wake of 9/11, and plays “see no evil, hear no evil” over extraordinary rendition and torture.
Oh, and “Transparency in party funding”? That’s a laugh. “Tory sleaze” was mostly individuals caught with their hands in the trough, or in the knickers of women who were not their wives. Labour sleaze has been endemic and systemic – witness Mittal, Ecclestone, Hinduja and the constant and repeated rehabilitation of disgraced ministers.
It’s absolutely fine to support Labour and vote Labour if that’s what you want to do. But I do sometimes wonder how people who hated the Tories so much get to sleep at night; having strived and wished through the long years of opposition, and worked to get Labour into power, and then watched them push through authoritarian measures the likes of which Thatcher never dreamt up.
Protested against the poll tax and then watch council tax rise by 84% since 1997 and pensioners get jailed for non-payment. Laughing uproariously when Spitting Image potrayed Thatcher as having a crush on Reagan, and then have to watch Blair kowtow to Bush on every issue. Nodded approvingly when Labour voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Bills, and now watches them trying to introduce ID cards and 90-day detention. Marched against the Falklands War and now have to watch video of British soldiers kicking the sh1t out of Iraqis.
I guess now we now the answer: you rock yourselves to sleep by repeating softly, “they would have been worse. they would have been worse. they would have been worse. “
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:20 pm
Such Thatcher/Blair comparisons would need to be done thoroughly and on a like for like basis to be effective. There are many differences: what weight do you place on the very different rhetorics? What weight do you place upon the degradation of the political system wrought through 18 years of Tory rule (remember Westland; remember the Scott report) which opened the way for a lot of Blair’s informal anti-constitutionalism of the 2000s? The serious attacks upon the legal system and the criminal justice system began under the Tories. People started to think the unthinkable, even though not everything was acted upon. Now it is being, and to a large extent the wider public is desensitised or bought off by patronising statements about “choice”, shorter waiting lists, and the impossibly bureaucratic tax credit system (copyright: G. Brown). I recognise the anger. I’ll be interested to hear/read more considered and tested-out comparisons.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:21 pm
PS Why bother with that silly screenshot? Just winds people up needlessly.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:39 pm
Neil, thank you for coming here to confirm that you are indeed completely ignorant of what is meant by authoritarianism. Here’s a hint: it doesn’t mean ‘passing laws you don’t personally like’.
You are also labouring (no pun intended) under a misapprehension about what resulted from the abolition of the Metropolitan Counties – the boroughs within those counties became single tier authorities, taking over the powers previously exercised by the county. I ought to know, I lived in one of them.
As for quangos, this government has an unenviable record in removing aspects of public life from democratic control and replacing that with unelected bodies stuffed with their friends and supporters.
With regard to Milliband’s ‘double devolution’, that seems to me to amount rather to yet another assault on local democracy – cutting out local democratic control in favour of a direct relationship between central government and local (government selected) ‘volunteers’ and activists. This is neither de-centralising nor democratic, indeed it is quite the reverse. You could compare for example the school reforms where real control will in fact reside more thoroughly than before in the DfES.
You raise the issue of technological developments, but frankly I can’t see that you actually have a point to make. What are you trying to say? That it is a sufficient excuse to claim “the technology made us do it”. This is pathetic. Even children know that when they use excuses like that just how feeble they are being.
I will pass over your evident ignorance of Northern Ireland in silence, as I think you’ve embarrassed yourself enough there already.
So it seems that all you really have to offer in support of the Labour Government is an ill-thought-out ‘tu quoque’ and the assertion that anyone else would have been worse. Sigh. This is so intellectually feeble that I’m struggling to raise the energy to bother to reply.
But thanks once again for demonstrating that, far from being a caricature, my original post was quite accurate. I’ll end with a word of advice – when shooting your mouth off about things of which you are evidently fairly ignorant, you would be well advised to bear in mind the old saying: it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
February 22nd, 2006 at 11:59 pm
BondWoman -
I do think there is a difference in kind as well as degree between Blair’s Labour Government and Thatcher’s Tory one. Thatcher certainly dismantled the post-war economic consensus (such as it was), but I can’t see where you’re getting the ‘degradation of the political system’ from. I don’t see the relevance of the Westland affair here – one minister resigned in a huff, and another resigned because he’d leaked a document – and the Matrix Churchill case that led to the Scott report I think merely brought into the public view a culture of secrecy that had pervaded Wesminster for decades, if not longer, so it’s hard to lay anything (in terms of changes or developments) at the Tory government’s door.
Understand that I speak here as someone who was at the time a staunch Labour supporter, and vastly amused to see the Tories discomfitted.
As for the screenshot, it came at the end of a very long page of comments where Neil had been amply demonstrating his refusal to understand, and so it amused me, I’m afraid. What can I say? In a moment of weakness I thought it was funny, and it was the first time I’d seen such an unintended consequence on anyone’s blog. If the same thing had happened to me I’d have laughed it off – because it was something that happened by chance. And I knew any readers would themselves understand how it had happened (it does after all say clearly ‘Links to this post’). Hey ho.
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:04 am
I think that I said it best, frankly — Neil Harding: fucking stupid. Although, maybe I should have added “ignorant and blinkered” too. But then it seemed unnecessary as anyone who has read his blog would, inevitably, come to the same conclusion.
Neil comes across as one of those children who don’t really remember Thatcher or the 80s very clearly, but who had a hard-line, bigoted, die-hard Labour-supporting dad whose tragically embittered opinons he has swallowed unquestioningly and which he continues to parrot contrary to the continuing and burgeoning evidence, both that which is in front of his eyes and that which is volunteered by others with considerable more experience and knowledge than himself.
It’s all slightly sad, really.
DK
February 23rd, 2006 at 1:58 am
Pete, you are a bare faced liar. You are the one who is ignorant of history. Explain where what I have said about Ireland is wrong. The Tories introduced internment and banned Sinn Fein and introduced shoot to kill etc.
You said;;
“And briefly admitted as much on his own site (a genuine screenshot). ”
You are saying I wrote it, when I clearly didn’t. You are a liar!
People can call me what they like on my blog, I believe in freedom of speech. I don’t care if they call me a ‘fucking stupid’ whatever. Just because there are links from other blogs that say this then so what? I will never remove it. It is still there. So what? Do I care. I suppose from your comments, you would remove a similar remark about you, that was left on your blog. That is up to you. You and your friends may get satisfaction from hurling insults at me, but to me that just demonstrates your childishness and frustration at losing the argument.
Longrider, the reason you need a history lesson about Thatcher, is that you were saying ‘ooh she was nice really, just authoritarian in cabinet, believed in the individual freedom, yadda yadda etc.’
What utter tripe. You mean the same woman who sent the army against the miners and was responsible for the biggest post-war civil disturbances in Britain with her policy of the poll tax, not to mention the inner city riots in every major city in the early Eighties caused by her disastrous monetarist policies.
Lets talk about real civil liberties. Ask yourself the following and answer honestly;
Would you rather be gay under Thatcher or Blair?
Would you rather be a single parent under Thatcher or Blair?
Would you rather be working poor under Thatcher or Blair with a minimum wage/ guaranteed holidays, tax credits, better funded education and sure start for your children etc?
Would you rather be a poor pensioner under Thatcher or Blair with winter fuel payments, shorter waiting lists for NHS, free local bus travel, free tv licences, etc?
This is not just disagreeing with policy, these are fundamental civil rights differences, don’t pretend otherwise.
We are better off than we have ever been in terms of disposable income, poverty has been reduced and this government have introduced devolved power and proportional representation, and freedom of information, human rights, party funding transparency etc. etc.
This is not to say that this government is not getting some things wrong or that we don’t need more devolved power and better constitutional safeguards. WE do, and this has been the case for a long time. There is much more chance of achieving these things under a Labour government than a Tory government. The Tory record on civil liberties is appalling and speaks for itself. Don’t be fooled that things couldn’t get much worse under the Tories, they most certainly would!
Devil’s Kitchen; unfortunately my dad is a racist Tory like you, you know of the ‘Enoch was right’ and ‘Hitler did some good things’ brigade, and no doubt your dad was a racist Tory as well. You are the one who is an indoctrinated bigoted inbred, I rely on reason not prejudice unlike you.
February 23rd, 2006 at 6:55 am
Longrider, the reason you need a history lesson about Thatcher, is that you were saying ‘ooh she was nice really, just authoritarian in cabinet, believed in the individual freedom, yadda yadda etc.’
Strawman.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
It’s not that I’m disagreeing with you about Blair – but I think that with the sweeping away of the postwar economic consensus, we also saw the beginnings of the sweeping away of the postwar political consensus based on our medieval constitutional settlement. The problem lies deeper than simply one party enjoying an elective dictatorship for nine years (and rising) after another one enjoyed the same for eighteen years. The problem lies in the system, rather than in the nature of the party choices that are being made. In terms of being authoritarian with her own party, Thatcher *did* set a trend that Blair has clearly followed – the absence of checks and balances within the party for starters can lead to crazy policy choices. And also, all this regulatory reform rubbish, which lacks any sort of constitutional consciousness (a quote from Martin Loughlin) dates from the Thatcher era and the Bill going through Parliament is simply the logical consequence of those earlier steps. However, the genius of this government’s apparent willingness to make up the constitution as it goes along is its sudden desire to turn select committees into regulatory committees and give them a veto over statutory instruments. I mean, I ask you. This really is constitution-building with a bag over your headl.Electoral reform, a proper constitutional settlement with regard to the stateless nations, a proper revising second chamber, written constitution anchoring legislative, executive and judicial powers, constitutional protection of local government. They won’t make the system democratic in itself, but they will certainly help restrain some of the most egregious developments we have seen recently.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Lets talk about real civil liberties:
Civil liberties are protections from the power of governments. Examples include the right to life, the right to self defense, the right to a fair trial, the right to own property, the right to privacy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.
Neil, I strongly suggest reading that Wiki link. The only item on your list which can actually be considered a civil liberties issue is that of gay rights.
Civil liberties are essentially about protections from government power. I think the minimum wage, for example, is a good thing. But it has nothing to do with civil libetrty.
February 23rd, 2006 at 4:49 pm
You mean the same woman who sent the army against the miners…
No one asked the miners to play power politics. Their industry was dead, and they decided to try to bring down the (elected) government in order to safeguard their pointless jobs.
And, substantially, how is it different to Blair using the army to undermine the firefighters’ strike?
… and was responsible for the biggest post-war civil disturbances in Britain with her policy of the poll tax…
Which was an entirely fair tax, i.e. if you use facilties, then you should pay for them. A family of four uses more faclities than one person, so they should pay more. Surely that is the very essence of “fair” taxation?
… not to mention the inner city riots in every major city in the early Eighties caused by her disastrous monetarist policies.
What, in the name of all that is un-fucking-holy, has that to do with civil liberties? What about the biggest demonstrations ever, under this government, against the Hunting Ban and the Iraq War? What planet are you on, you fucking ape (clue: the answer’s in the question)?
Lets talk about real civil liberties. Ask yourself the following and answer honestly;
Would you rather be gay under Thatcher or Blair?”
What is your obsession with gays? Is there something that we should know? Would you rather be an unruly teenager under Blair or Thatcher?
Would you rather be a single parent under Thatcher or Blair?
Again, what? Are you suggesting that, because everyone else contributes towards the upkeep of those who cannot support themselves, that this is some kind of civil liberty? Socialist redistribution, yes; compassionate help, yes; civil liberty, no.
Would you rather be working poor under Thatcher or Blair with a minimum wage/ guaranteed holidays, tax credits, better funded education and sure start for your children etc?
As above. And, of course, if the government had more progressive tax policies – such as raising the Personal Allowance in line with wage inflation – there wouldn’t be so many working poor in the first place.
Has it escaped your notice, you buffoon, the the gap between rich and poor has widened, whilst social mobility has decreased, under this government? Or do you simply gloss over those reports because they don’t suit your worldview.
Would you rather be a poor pensioner under Thatcher or Blair with winter fuel payments, shorter waiting lists for NHS, free local bus travel, free tv licences, etc?
As above. Sorry, was that a 50p a week rise in pensions that they got last time? And, you are assuming that all pensioners are state pensioners. Would I rather be a private pensioner under Thatcher or Blair? Thatcher, obviously; her government didn’t completely screw the pensions industry, and therefore my pension.
This is not just disagreeing with policy, these are fundamental civil rights differences, don’t pretend otherwise.
No, they aren’t.
We are better off than we have ever been in terms of disposable income…
Who’s “we”, Neil? Does the fact that the government takes away more of our earned income than ever before really give us more disposable income?
… poverty has been reduced…
No, it hasn’t. Not really. It’s all illusion.
… and this government have introduced devolved power and proportional representation…
How is that a civil liberties argument? This government has added two more tiers of expensive bureaucracy in Labour heartlands, that is all. It has ensured that its MPs can continue to vote on English matters, whilst keeping its fringe heartlands happy by giving them the illusion of power.
… and freedom of information…
Well, up to a point; as long as the information asked for under FoI requests are not “commercially sensitive” or deemed unsuitable for release by a government minister or functionary acting in their name.
… human rights…
No, this government has not given us human rights: the difference between human rights (which we have always had) and the Human Rights Act are worlds apart.
… party funding transparency etc. etc.
Yup, along with cash for policy change, such as Ecclestone, Mittal, the Hinduja brothers, and too many more to mention (but you may want to look here for more).
You are a knave and fool.
DK
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:20 pm
Garry has addressed the civil liberties point. Although this has been explained ad nauseam.
Let’s look at Northern Ireland. It has also been explained that the Tories did not introduce internment, that was the devolved government of NI. Internment continued under direct rule from March 1972 until 1975 (under both Tory and Labour governments. So Neil, you are quite wrong there. As for other forms of imprisonment without trial or charge, let’s look at the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1974. Introduced by a Labour Home Secretary (and described by him at the time as ‘draconian’), it allowed detention without charge for 48 hours (note that the existing criminal law did not allow any form of detention without charge), extensible up to seven days on the Home Secretary’s say-so. Obviously this has long been superseded by even more draconian measures, but the facts are clear. The only UK governments since WW2 to introduce any form of detention without charge have been Labour governments.
As for gay rights and the age of consent, here’s some facts – from 1967 the age of consent was 21. This was reduced (under a Tory government, though it was not a government bill) to 18 in 1994, and in 2000 to the present 16 years (in this case using the Parliament Act to force the legislation through.
With regard to the rather silly questions about “Would you rather be…?” which ignore all the other societal factors affecting what it is like to live in a particular era and reduce it all to a matter of personalities, taking everything that defined what it was like to live then and laying it at the door of a single person. Still let’s have a quick look at the straw army, though it has nothing whatsoever to do with civil liberties.
Would you rather be gay under Thatcher or Blair?
How about neither of them? This isn’t after all a real choice that can be made
Would you rather be a single parent under Thatcher or Blair?
Doesn’t that rather depend on your individual circumstances? For example, I suspect the friend of mine who attended university in the mid-80s as a single parent and mature student would far prefer the former, as she didn’t leave unversity saddled with huge debts.
Would you rather be working poor under Thatcher or Blair with a minimum wage/ guaranteed holidays, tax credits, better funded education and sure start for your children etc?
Interesting biases built into the question there, don’t you think? It’s true that there has been a marginal economic improvement for some groups of poor people. Not got a whole lot to do with civil liberties though.
Would you rather be a poor pensioner under Thatcher or Blair with winter fuel payments, shorter waiting lists for NHS, free local bus travel, free tv licences, etc?
Or would you rather be a poor pensioner with much lower actual fuel charges? And still with free bus travel (you really need to do a little more research before making these sort of ill-founded statements you know). A much cheaper TV licence, and a state pension worth much more in real terms. As for the shorter wating lists, this is to a great extent a statistical fiddle, but I can’t be bothered looking up the figures right now. Maybe you should do some actual research for a change.
Is this the sum of your argument? You disapprove of Thatcher’s economic policies, therefore anything that Blair does must be supported?
Anyway, to summarize. I said Neil does not understand what is meant by civil liberties, and that he is a hopeless case. Neil posts a series of comments clearly showing the he does not understand what is meant by civil liberties, and that he seems incapable of learning. QED, I think.
BTW the screenshot. I thought it was funny, it was meant to be a joke – and apposite given the content of the page full of comments that it appeared at the foot of. I gave any readers credit for being able to understand how such a thing might have occurred, I didn’t think I would have to make it explicit.
As for:
Pete, you are a bare faced liar.
Well, right in one point. I am indeed clean shaven.
and:
You are the one who is ignorant of history.
The facts suggest otherwise.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:28 pm
Garry -
You had an extra in your post, and it was really bugging me that it made everything after that in italics, so I removed it. Hope that’s OK.
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:32 pm
Bollox – what I meant was an extra [/em]
(there should make it show up)
February 23rd, 2006 at 5:32 pm
BondWoman –
Yes, I think you have it summed up exactly right.
February 23rd, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Sorry about that. It annoyed me too. Thanks for sorting it.
February 25th, 2006 at 12:02 pm
[...] It all started to get interesting when others became involved in the discussion. For the record, I do not need a history lesson as Mr Harding asserts. Oh yeah, Mr Longrider, Thatcher was nice really, just a bit authoritarian with her party no-one else, YOU need a history lesson mate! [...]
March 22nd, 2006 at 7:24 pm
[...] It all started to get interesting when others became involved in the discussion. For the record, I do not need a history lesson as Mr Harding asserts. …YOU need a history lesson mate! [...]